Pages

Thursday, June 24, 2010

In Part I I gave a deliberate rundown of the endless debate in the fitness industry over which type of training is better:

1) Train for low rep strength and size and development will come; or
2) Train for size and development and low rep strength takes care of itself.

I think everyone knows where I stand on the issue; but an opinion is not
enough. And it seems neither is decades of real-world results in the
industry. So in Part II I want to look a little closer at the science
involved and what the research actually tells us. And don’t worry; the
goal here is not to bore everyone with meaningless science and big
words. But it is important that people understand why they should train a
certain way to accomplish specific goals. And once the "why" is grasped
then the "how" makes more and more sense. So I will not bog people down
with a lot of mumbo jumbo. The point is, if the actual principles
involved have been misapplied by the experts for decades, then there is
no reason you should be expected to understand the deeper aspects of the
principle either. And to be sure Ralph Carpinelli’s 2008 review of the
literature led him to an obvious conclusion that “the misapplication of the Size Principle is an error in reasoning.” I have been saying this exact thing for decades as well.

So while many or most strength experts understand the Size Principle of
Fiber Recruitment they make mistakes in extrapolating from it, and in
their attempted application of the Principle. It’s amazing to me to
continue to witness--after all these decades--that people can comprehend
a principle in theory or on paper, but have no real idea how to apply
it. I want to address this now in Part II.

The Size Principle Made Simple

What is important for you to know is that the Size Principle of Motor
Unit Recruitment (motor units control muscle action) states that motor
units are recruited in an orderly manner from the smaller lower
threshold fatigue resistant fibers (like the ones that allow me to type
this article) to the larger higher threshold quick-to-fatigue motor
units that we associate with Type 2 muscle fiber employed to gain
strength and build muscle. Now the one element that is specified about
the Size Principle is that recruitment is dependent on the degree of efforts demanded. This is what I call intensity,
and this is where the common mistake seems to be made in the strength
industry. Unfortunately experts in our industry tend to filter this
principle through musculoskeletal aspects of strength. This can lead to
very faulty conclusions, as we will see. The Size Principle of neurophysiology is a neural event; not a muscular one.
And this is where all the mistakes about “heavy is better” training
come from. It also leads to the illusion that lighter means “easier”
and heavier means “harder”; both of which are relative and not absolute,
and, more importantly just as often not true at all.

The Size Principle is quite clear that it is maximal or near maximal efforts
which recruit the higher threshold motor units. The mistake occurs
among strength researchers who make the error of equating
tissue-intensity in muscle and low-rep strength as the same thing. And
this is not what the size principle dictates. So if we follow the
incorrect logic in strengthdom, the experts note that since near
maximal efforts appear at the last few reps of a set, then maximum
resistance is all that is needed for maximum fiber recruitment. Hence
the theory, train with heavy low rep external resistance and size and
development will follow. This seems logical on the surface. But like
many theories logic is not always correct.

Let’s examine this in more detail by example. If you bench press, say,
200 lbs for 10 reps; for you, the set may not get difficult till about
(for example) rep number 7. The strength theorists want to believe that
any stimulus up to that point is irrelevant so why not just employ
heavier resistance from the beginning? But here’s the point. During
that set of 10 the force of contraction does not change. And the
resistance through the whole set remains 200 lbs. So the trainee is not
“lifting more” as the set continues because that 200 lbs resistance
stays constant. But motor unit activity increases; and this is a
learned adaptive response of applied intensity that is missed by those
who view the size principle by filtering it through very one-dimensional
perceptions of strength. This element is addressed in the neural
response know as Total Activation Potential (TAP). And like many
advanced concepts, while it cannot be measured it can certainly be
“observed.” It is indeed an advanced or progression in terms of the
neural component.

The fact that is missed here is that recruitment of higher threshold motor units is a developed and refined skill,
not an absolute. Doing low rep, high external resistance training
before this skill is developed is illogical. And we can see the
obviousness of this in other examples. (This would be akin to thinking
you can train an infant to run first and bypass learning to walk and
stand up without falling down.)

Another example is that calligraphers or painters who rely on low
threshold motor unit recruitment and control, still have to develop and
refine that skill to use pen or brush strokes within a finely controlled
space. It is an acquired skill. Or to see it another way, it is a
“neural event,” not a muscular one. As another example, we know that
running demands recruitment of larger motor units than does walking. But
we can’t just advise a baby to run instead of learning to walk first.

Here’s something closer to real-world strength development by example:

A difficult series of moves for a gymnast may be executing a triple
somersault with double flip. We cannot just tell a gymnast since that is
so, execute those moves instead of learning all the other moves leading
up to that. No. The recruitment and strength involved is a developed
and refined skill set! A gymnast is a good example here, since they have
enormous strength, great physical development, and yet never apply
maximum external resistance in terms of heavy implements.
The gymnast does not employ low rep external resistance to increase
force demands on his muscles. But instead, learning moves that demand
strength expression, and then stringing them together as a series of
execution of moves produces greater force demands and therefore maximum
recruitment of the larger motor units. They also develop their physiques
this way. So this aspect of neural learning cannot be accurately
explained by the theorists who advocate a “heavier is better”
philosophy; since no such things exists in these examples. The point is
made more clearly by examining the Training Efficiency Percentage of strength performance and execution (TEP).

Training Efficiency Percentage

Training Efficiency Percentage (TEP) is defined as the number or percentage of reps in a given set that elicit an adaptive response.
If you observe a very advanced trainee and an intermediate trainee
perform a set of 10 you'll notice a difference in how the muscle
fatigues. As stated above, for the average person, doing a set of 10,
may not show difficulty in performance of that set until the last few
reps. But in the advanced trainee, you'll notice the first and last rep
appear to be of equal intensity. In other words, there is a greater TEP
in the advanced trainee than there is in the intermediate lifter; for
the beginning or intermediate lifter difficulty only comes near the end
of a set. This is a learned response/adaptation sequence that takes
place over time. Or to put it another way: learning to recruit larger motor units for strength performance is a skill set developed and refined over time.
Advising someone to train very low reps with a lot of external
resistance is a mistake because their systems, nervous systems have not
adapted to that level of quick and sustained motor unit recruitment.

It is a misinterpretation of the Size Principle to advise that low rep,
high resistance training is superior. And it is a mistake because the
assumption combines perceptions of strength into an equation that is
neural, not muscular; just like with the baby learning to walk.

And there are neural principles at work here, which supersede the
musculoskeletal strength principles. For instance, Total Activation
Potential (TAP) mentioned above and Maximum Voluntary Neural Activation
(MVNA) are neural events going on in the adaptation of the trainee to
training stimulus over time.

Let’s look at just a few of the research findings over time that back up my premise.

The Research

In 1962 Berger compared strength results of 2RM, 10RM, and 12RM bench
press. Then also in 1962, he compared 2RM and 10RM bench press results.
As a follow up again in 1963, he compared the results of 2RM training
in the free weight bench press with 6RM and 10RM again. In 1966, O’Shea
compared strength results in 2-3RM, 5-6 RM, and 9-10RM free weight
squats. Shortly after in 1970, Withers compared strength results by
testing 3RM, 5RM, and 7RM for three upper and lower body free-weight
exercises. In 1996, Hisaeda et al, looked at the difference of strength
gained at 4-6RM, and 15-20RM respectively for the leg extension
movement. In 1999, Graves et al did a similar study at 7-10RM and
15-20RM leg extensions as well. Also in 1999, Weiss looked at strength
results for training at 3-5RM compared to 13-15RM in the barbell squat.
In 2000, Bemben et al examined strength training results at 4RM, and
10RM for seven upper-body exercises. In 2004, Harris et al compared
strength results of training at 6RM, 9RM, and 15RM upper body and lower
body free-weight and machine exercises.

So we have here a collection of studies over time chronologically that
employed different movements and varied forms of tension against the low
rep theory of strength.

The result for every single one of the above studies is that they all reportedno significant difference in the strength gains among the various groups using different amounts of resistance (RM’s) for training (see as well Carpinelli 2008, Table 2). These are only a few of the studies I have chosen in chronological order to show that the research has been both available and consistent over time.

I mentioned research from 1995 by David Behm in Part 1 as well. Well in
2002 Behm concluded from another relevant study of his that “the
commonly repeated suggestion that maximal strength methods (resistance
heavier than 6 RM) produce greater neural adaptations or increase in
neural drive was NOT substantiated in this study” (Behm 2002 pp. 13).

In fact, this study of Behm’s unequivocally illustrated a direct
relationship between intensity of applied effort over increased
externally applied resistance. Read that again ten times. This is
just like we see in gymnasts, and this once again remains in adherence
to the size principle of motor unit activation and muscle recruitment.

So the take away lessons here are many. First and foremost:

Intensity trumps strength.

You do not have to be 1RM “strong” in terms of how much you can lift, to develop a body or develop strength; but you do need to apply max efforts consistently (my career is also testimony to this statement). How much you lift is secondary to how hard you lift.
Intensity is beyond a tissue-dependent, reductionist equation. And of
course proper programming always comes into play, especially for hard
gainers.

Next, since there is no greater benefit by training with very low reps
and higher resistance loads, then maybe a long-term consideration for
protecting joint wear and tear would be forgoing the low reps protocols
altogether. This is one reason traditional bodybuilders are still
training hard in their 50s, 60s, and 70s (Bill Pearl and Lou Ferrigno
come to mind) while former strength specialists joints are so arthritic
and limited as they age that they can no longer train at all. So this is
an important consideration for those of us who love to train and
workout.

Also many new age experts commonly attack the 3 sets of 10 as archaic
and infantile in terms of application. Yet, we see from the actual
research regarding the size principle that in truth 3 sets of 10 is as
viable or perhaps more so, than say sets of doubles or triples,
providing the intensity of applied effort for the 10 reps is near
maximal.

As Carpinelli concluded in his review of the prevailing literature on
“heavier is better,” that “the pervasive and faulty assumption that
maximal or near maximal force, as in very heavy resistance, is required
for recruitment of the higher threshold motor units and optimal strength
gains is not supported by the size principle, motor unit activation studies, or resistance training studies. This flawed premise has resulted in the unsubstantiated heavier-is-better recommendation for resistance training” (Carpinelli 2008; my emphasis).

Re-read that sentence ten times and send it to all your friends as well!

To me, it has always struck me funny that I am the one labelled as
radical and unconventional in my approach to training, where in fact, I
seem to be truthfully in accordance with following the actual principles
in application. Once again, what the size principle dictates and
what has been my own applied experience for decades is that for size
and development, “train for development and strength will come.” And in
harmony with my Innervation Training Methodology for physique
enhancement at any level, the truth is that it is not maximum or near
maximum externally applied resistance that yields the best results for
development, but rather maximum or near maximum internally focused
efforts that matter most (i.e., biofeedback).

So it’s not about “lifting more” it is about “lifting better.” The mind
muscle connection is at the heart of the notion that the muscles work the weights; the weights don’t work the muscles.
This is, of course, an advanced mode of training in attitude and
application. It goes beyond being macho and training your ego to being
mature and accomplishing a training goal.

We need to get away from using the genetic elite representatives of any
sport as the model for “how to” for the genetically average individual. I
know what that is like because I was genetically average and buying
into the “load’ emphasis got me nowhere. I got to the top of the
physique enhancement game by thinking outside the box, and properly
applying the actual principles, instead of relying on other expert’s
faulty interpretation of those principles. I offer you the same here.

Often times in any industry the lines of fact and fiction, bias and
objectivity, get crossed and confused. And it’s not always intentional.
Well-meaning researchers or enthusiasts want to make a name for
themselves by establishing something new or different. But often in
their zeal to do so, they misinterpret or incorrectly apply the
principles. Too often, experts are trying to reinvent the wheel.

Me, I’m just trying to make a more efficient wheel. Or as comedian Sid
Caesar put it, “the guy who invented the wheel was an idiot; the guy who
added the other three, now he was a genius!” And for me, my
Innervation Training and MET Methodology and Hybrid approaches to
protocol, are my attempts at adding the other three wheels, while still
remaining true to the actual principles.

Moreover, new elements of the modern training environment cloud the
issue further. The use of insulin by bodybuilders and power lifters
leads to huge tissue leverage and an enhanced capacity to “lift more.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean better. And it certainly doesn’t translate
into better training for the rest of trainees either. The use of
“partials” is the same kind of misguided thinking. But this is another
separate article which I will address and “prove” in the near future. So
let’s not just trust and follow “trends,” and let's not just trust and
follow “opinion.” Let’s learn to trust and follow “informed opinion.” I
hope this article serves as a means for you to do so.

So now that you know better, go out, and “lift hard!” ...And just know that lifting hard may or may not have anything to do with lifting heavy.
They can indeed be mutually inclusive, depending on a program. But they
need not be, as well. The difference for me in establishing a very
long career in the physique game is that I learned while many people
could out lift me; in my prime, no one could out-work me!

Some of you will get it, some of you will not.

For more in-depth discussion on the 1RM myth of training, listen to my MP3 “The Truth About Training” or check out any of my DVD programs to see the application of these principles in action.

Other Products

Links

Testimonials

"Tell Scott, I'm a firm fan. His book 'clicked' with me and my client base is loving it so much they can't help but refer!!! I'm the most expensive trainer in Pakistan/India and I don't have ANY room for new people!"
Amir, Pakistan

"I just want to thank Scott for all he does, that extends way beyond the title of coach. Where else could a regular Joe, non-competitor like me, get a contract with a supplement company and eventually be in magazines all over the world. It's such a dream come true and Scott makes these things happen for tons of regular Joe's and Jane's, just like me. Thanks Scott. I will make you proud."
Laz, Florida USA